Briefing Cases Adapted From David M. O'Brien University Of V

Briefing Casesadapted From David M Obrien University Of Virginia

Briefing Cases adapted from David M. O’Brien, University of Virginia, 1998, provides a structured approach to understanding significant case law through a seven-step briefing method. This approach emphasizes thorough reading of the case, identifying key facts, legal questions, reasoning, and judicial holdings. The example used in the guide is Marbury v. Madison, a fundamental case establishing judicial review in the United States.

The case involves outgoing President John Adams commissioning William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace. The commission was not delivered before Adams left office, and President Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver the commission, citing the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, analyzed whether Marbury had a right to the commission, whether legal remedies existed, whether the Court could issue such a writ, and whether the law granting that power was constitutional.

Marshall’s opinion carefully reasons through these questions, ultimately asserting that while Marbury had a right to his commission and remedies existed, the Court could not issue the writ because the relevant law (Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789) expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution permitted. The case established the principle that the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional, solidifying the doctrine of judicial review.

The ruling revealed that certain provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 were unconstitutional and emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The decision also highlighted that the judiciary has the duty to interpret laws and ensure they conform to the Constitution, reinforcing the Court’s role as a coequal branch of government.

In evaluating the case, critiques include the conflict of Marshall’s position as both a participant and the presiding judge, the appropriateness of the Court’s original jurisdiction, and the broader implications of judicial review versus judicial supremacy. The case remains a cornerstone of constitutional law, demonstrating the judiciary's power to check legislative and executive actions.

Paper For Above instruction

Marbury v. Madison (1803) is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, fundamentally shaping the balance of power among the three branches of government. The case arose in the aftermath of the 1800 presidential election, which resulted in Thomas Jefferson's election and the subsequent departure of Federalist officials, including President John Adams. In the closing days of his presidency, Adams appointed numerous federal judges, including William Marbury, to secure Federalist influence. These appointments, known as the “midnight appointments,” required formal commissions signed by the President and the Secretary of State for finalization.

Adams' Secretary of State, John Marshall, signed Marbury’s commission, but due to delays, it was not delivered before Jefferson assumed office. Jefferson, objecting to Federalist appointments, instructed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the remaining commissions, including Marbury’s. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver his commission, asserting a legal right violated by Madison’s refusal. The case presented fundamental questions about the Court’s authority to review acts of Congress and about the judiciary’s role in maintaining constitutional supremacy.

The legal questions posed by the case include whether Marbury was entitled to his commission, whether he had an appropriate legal remedy, whether the Court could issue the writ of mandamus, and whether the relevant law granted the Court the power to do so. Marshall’s analysis affirmed that Marbury had a right to his commission once his appointment was completed and that the law provided a remedy. However, the Court faced a constitutional dilemma: granting Marbury’s claim would require the Court to issue a writ of mandamus, but the law enabling the Court to do so—Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789—expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution permitted.

Marshall’s opinion clarified that it was the judiciary’s duty to interpret the law, including determining the constitutionality of statutes. The key principle drawn from the case is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law inconsistent with it is null and void. Consequently, the Court ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional to the extent that it attempted to expand the Court’s original jurisdiction. Importantly, the decision established the doctrine of judicial review—the power of courts to strike down unconstitutional laws—which has become a cornerstone of American constitutional law.

The ruling had immediate political repercussions, asserting judicial independence and empowerment but also raising questions about judicial overreach. Marshall’s assertion that it was the duty of the judiciary to interpret the law and ensure the supremacy of the Constitution has had a lasting influence on the American legal system. Critics argue that the decision marked a shift towards judicial activism, while supporters see it as a necessary check on legislative and executive powers.

Marshall’s careful reasoning and the case’s profound legal implications have made Marbury v. Madison a seminal precedent. It solidified the judiciary’s role as a coequal branch capable of checking the other branches, ensuring the rule of law prevails over political pressures. Its historical importance lies in establishing the constitutional principle that courts have the authority and responsibility to uphold the Constitution’s supremacy.

However, some criticisms focus on the potential politicization of judicial review and the concerns over judicial overreach. Critics have argued that Marshall’s broad interpretation of judicial authority could be used to override legislative decisions, blurring the separation of powers. Nevertheless, the case remains fundamental in American constitutional law education and practice, symbolizing the judiciary’s central role in maintaining constitutional governance.

References

• Chemerinsky, E. (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies. Wolters Kluwer.
• Feldman, N. (2004). The Spirit of Judicial Review. Princeton University Press.
• Levit, N. V. (2004). Judicial Review and the Law of the Constitution. Oxford University Press.
• McCloskey, R. (2014). The American Supreme Court: Fifth Edition. University Press of Kansas.
• Powe Jr, L. A. (2000). The Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press.
• Snyder, F. (2017). The Supreme Court and the Constitution. Oxford University Press.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do. Oxford University Press.
• Warren, C. & Brandeis, L. (1890). The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220.
• Yasuda, K. (2004). The Constitutional Law of the United States. Cambridge University Press.
• Zimmerman, J. (1992). The Supreme Court and the Constitution: Cases and Materials. Foundation Press.